It's oh so nice to see longer haul CR9 flying get upgraded to mainline. I'm sorry, I know some people love the CR9, but I still find them fairly miserable for a flight over two hours if you're stuck in Y....

Quoting MSYtristar (Thread starter):It's oh so nice to see longer haul CR9 flying get upgraded to mainline. I'm sorry, I know some people love the CR9, but I still find them fairly miserable for a flight over two hours if you're stuck in Y....

SLC-BNA: CR9 to 319 eff. 6/10SLC-MSY: CR9 to 319 eff. 6/10

I would gladly take the CR9 reinstated service BHM-SLC! It would be nice if they gave that route another shot with one at a decent time.

I hear ya on that. To be honest, my ATL-ORD flight on the CR9 wasn't even that enjoyable. The cabin is just too cramped. I admit, much nicer than the CR2, but it still has that small plane feel to it, especially when flying through the rough stuff. I've never considered myself to be claustrophobic, but at times on those CR2/7/9's, to put it mildly, I just can't wait to get off. Interestingly enough, I don't have that issue on the ERJ's, since I can usually snag an "A" seat. That makes a lot of difference. F class on the newer CRJ series is a nice ride...Y leaves a lot to be desired, even with all the improvements made on the newer series.

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 3):
I hear ya on that. To be honest, my ATL-ORD flight on the CR9 wasn't even that enjoyable. The cabin is just too cramped. I admit, much nicer than the CR2, but it still has that small plane feel to it, especially when flying through the rough stuff. I've never considered myself to be claustrophobic, but at times on those CR2/7/9's, to put it mildly, I just can't wait to get off. Interestingly enough, I don't have that issue on the ERJ's, since I can usually snag an "A" seat. That makes a lot of difference. F class on the newer CRJ series is a nice ride...Y leaves a lot to be desired, even with all the improvements made on the newer series.

I respectfully disagree... I would say CR9 (esp the new cabin) are as roomy and airy as the E-Jets (E-170/E-190). Is it not great, especially on long flights, but a real improvement in RJ's. Personally, I wish the 717 would have caught on more than the overgrown RJ's... that feels like flying in a real airplane, to me.

As for the ERJs, sitting in A is the worst thing ever (for me), due to the extreme curvature of the airplane. At about 6'4" (1,94m), the only seat I fit into sitting up straight is B, so I'd sooner travel by dog sled than by ERJ.

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 6):Really? Not to dispute your opinion at all, but I've always thought that the E70/90 series feel much more open...and the Y seats always seem bigger on those. Trick of the mind perhaps.

While Explus is somewhat better, It wasn't the legroom that was the problem. It was the narrow width of the seats on that long of a flight that is unbearable. To sit with your shoulders sucked in for an entire flight like that is pretty miserable.

SLC and the top cities that flow over it generate enormous volumes of traffic for the summer at fairly decent yields but the trend doesn't continue throughout the year. It is doubtul this routes will continue beyond the summer on this equipment unless there is a significant domestic recovery.

Quoting goldenshield (Reply 8):What's your definition of a "real" airplane, then, if the FAA's definition doesn't work for you?

Apparently, all of those private pilots with AIRPLANE - SINGLE ENGINE LAND or AIRPLANE - MULTIENGINE LAND ratings aren't real pilots, either?

LOL, I think he meant that 717s feel like powerful mainline jets, while CR9s do not. They are clearly both airplanes. Some people who have flown for decades are used to mainline jets and thus flying on them brings a "truer" flying experience similar to that of decades past. You kinda have to be an airplane geek to understand.

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 13):Some people who have flown for decades are used to mainline jets and thus flying on them brings a "truer" flying experience similar to that of decades past. You kinda have to be an airplane geek to understand.

If I'm apparently not an airplane geek, then why am I here? Apparently, despite the ratings I've earned, I'm not as geeky as those who would prefer to stare lazily out the window and sip their champagne.

Flying is flying, is flying. Going from one plane to another is not going to change the experience that you are flying. And let's face it, the economics of flying has changed. Airlines can't afford to have every takeoff like they are launching from an aircraft carrier; it's inefficient to do so---both with fuel, and wear and tear on the engine.

Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.

Quoting goldenshield (Reply 17):Flying is flying, is flying. Going from one plane to another is not going to change the experience that you are flying. And let's face it, the economics of flying has changed. Airlines can't afford to have every takeoff like they are launching from an aircraft carrier; it's inefficient to do so---both with fuel, and wear and tear on the engine.

Fair enough point, but I disagree in that an airplane can't make a difference. Flying on an F-15 is not the same as flying on a Cessna although they are both flying. Similarly, though to a lesser degree, flying on a 717 is not the exact same as flying on a CRJ-900. Yes, the economics of flying have changed, hence the less powerful CR9 being popular, no one is denying that. The poster that you originally responded too, FlyDreamliner, just said that he wished the 717 caught on instead of the CR9.